No it aint useful.....a centrally located Nervous System enables easy functioning of body organs....if we will have a nerve centre in each organ then there is a possiblity of mixing up of nerve impulses

Okay I Know That But If we have brain along nerve system in each organ ! when our spinal cord damages we won't have any problem ! and until our spinal cord works good this center is Disabled and when our Spinal Cord damaged , it will enabled ! ( Sry for my English ) !

3aket wrote:Okay I Know That But If we have brain along nerve system in each organ ! when our spinal cord damages we won't have any problem ! and until our spinal cord works good this center is Disabled and when our Spinal Cord damaged , it will enabled ! ( Sry for my English ) !

But, continuing to think along those lines, if a central routing mechanism like the spinal chord is damaged in such hypothetical organism, it will have no way of coordinating the activities between the various "independently thinking" organs and could thus cause conflicts and "inter-organ competition" in the body. If we extend the hypothetical situation further to have instead a network between the organs rather than a central "router", that could fix the problem, but now there is a significantly larger cost in energy to build and maintain such an infrastructure in a body. Also, there are added difficulties in that individual "organ brains" may then have their own neurological problems, to the detriment of the entire organism.

Overall, it seems to me there is no real advantage over having a centralized nervous system communicating with and controlling the parts. Any small advantages that may come would be greatly outweighed by the disadvantages (development, maintenance, infrastructure, energy, etc. costs).

"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks